`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 1 of 34
`
`Fred Norton (CA SBN 224725)
`fnorton@nortonlaw.com
`Nathan Walker (CA SBN 206128)
`nwalker@nortonlaw.com
`Bree Hann (CA SBN 215695)
`bhann@nortonlaw.com
`Gil Walton (CA SBN 324133)
`gwalton@nortonlaw.com
`THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
`299 Third Street, Suite 200
`Oakland, CA 94607
`Telephone: (510) 906-4900
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`PATREON, INC.
`
`BRAYDEN STARK, JUDD OOSTYEN,
`KEVIN BLACK, and MARYANN OWENS,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`Date: September 9, 2022
`Time: 9:30 a.m.
`Judge: Hon. Joseph C. Spero
`
`
`
`PATREON, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 2 of 34
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD, PLEASE
`TAKE NOTICE that on September 9, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard,
`in Courtroom F, 15th Floor of this Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102,
`Defendant Patreon, Inc. (“Patreon”) will, and hereby does, move for an order dismissing the Complaint
`in this case (Dkt. 1) in its entirety with prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for
`failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
`This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion; the following memorandum of points
`and authorities; Patreon’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) and its attached supporting Declaration
`of Tyler Layton submitted herewith; the Complaint (Dkt. 1); any evidence or argument presented at the
`hearing on the motion; and any other matters the Court deems proper.
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`Patreon moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint in
`this case in its entirety with prejudice.
`
`1
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 3 of 34
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ 1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 5
`A.
`Legal Standard ................................................................................................................... 5
`B.
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ VPPA Claims ........................................................ 5
`1. Overview of the VPPA ............................................................................................... 5
`2. Patreon Is Not a “Video Tape Service Provider” ....................................................... 6
`3. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Patreon Disclosed Their Identities ....................................... 9
`4. Plaintiffs Fail to Plausibly Allege Patreon “Knowingly” Disclosed
`PII to Facebook .......................................................................................................... 9
`5. The VPPA, on Its Face and as Applied to Patreon, Violates the First
`Amendment to the United States Constitution ......................................................... 10
`a.
`The VPPA, on Its Face, Violates the First Amendment .......................... 11
`b.
`The VPPA, as Applied in this Case, Violates the First Amendment ....... 13
`i.
`The VPPA is a content- and speaker based regulation of
`non-commercial speech and thus it is subject to strict scrutiny ... 13
`The VPPA fails to satisfy strict scrutiny on the alleged
`facts of this lawsuit ...................................................................... 16
`Even if the VPPA regulates commercial speech subject to
`intermediate scrutiny, it fails to withstand scrutiny ..................... 18
`Plaintiffs Do Not State A Claim For Violation of the UCL or the CLRA....................... 20
`1. Plaintiffs Do Not State a UCL Claim Based on Patreon’s Alleged
`Disclosure of Information to Facebook .................................................................... 21
`2. Plaintiffs Do Not State a UCL or CLRA Claim Based on Patreon’s
`Alleged Failure to Disclose ...................................................................................... 23
`Plaintiffs’ Claim for Unjust Enrichment Should Be Dismissed ...................................... 24
`D.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 25
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 4 of 34
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island,
`517 U.S. 484 (1996) ............................................................................................................................. 19
`Abuelhawa v. Santa Clara Univ.,
`529 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ............................................................................................... 24
`Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal.,
`535 U.S. 234 (2002) ............................................................................................................................. 11
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................................................... 5, 10, 25
`Austin-Spearman v. AMC Network Ent. LLC,
`98 F. Supp. 3d 662 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .............................................................................................. 14, 18
`Bank of New York Mellon v. Citibank, N.A.,
`8 Cal. App. 5th 935, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 504 (2017) ................................................................................ 25
`Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Pol. Consultants, Inc.,
`140 S.Ct. 2335 (2020) .......................................................................................................................... 14
`Bartnicki v. Vopper,
`532 U.S. 514 (2001) ............................................................................................................................. 14
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................................................... 5
`Berger v. City of Seattle,
`569 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................................. 14
`Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prod. Corp.,
`463 U.S. 60 (1983) ............................................................................................................................... 15
`Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 110 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ........................................................................................... 24, 25
`Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n,
`564 U.S. 786 (2011) ....................................................................................................................... 15, 17
`Cappello v. Walmart Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-06678-RS, 2019 WL 11687705 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2019) ................................................ 22
`Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y.,
`447 U.S. 557 (1980) ............................................................................................................................. 19
`Collins v. eMachines, Inc.,
`202 Cal. App. 4th 249 (2011) .............................................................................................................. 24
`Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn,
`420 U.S. 469 (1975) ............................................................................................................................. 13
`
`ii
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 5 of 34
`
`Crittenden v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 5:21-CV-04322-EJD, 2022 WL 2132224 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2022) ............................................. 9
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................................. 21
`De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC,
`21 Cal. App. 5th 845, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 625 (2018) .............................................................................. 25
`Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc.,
`876 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................... 5, 7, 9, 12
`Ellis v. Cartoon Network, Inc.,
`803 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 14, 18
`ESG Cap. Partners, LP v. Stratos,
`828 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................................. 25
`Forsyth Cnty., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement,
`505 U.S. 123 (1992) ............................................................................................................................. 11
`Garrison v. Louisiana,
`379 U.S. 64 (1964) ............................................................................................................................... 12
`Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,
`418 U.S. 323 (1974) ....................................................................................................................... 13, 17
`Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 109 (2011) .......................................................................... 25
`Hunt v. City of Los Angeles,
`638 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................................... 15
`IMDb.com Inc. v. Becerra,
`962 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... Passim
`In re Google Android Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`No 11-MD-02264 JSW, 2013 WL 1283236 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) ............................................ 23
`In re Google Inc. St. View Elec. Commc’ns Litig.,
`794 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................................................................... 22
`In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords Inc.,
`26 Med. L. Rptr. 1599 (D.D.C. 1998).................................................................................................. 18
`In re Hulu Priv. Litig.,
`86 F. Supp. 3d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................... 6, 9
`In re iPhone Application Litig.,
`No. 11-md-2250, 2011 WL 4403963 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011)........................................................ 22
`In re Nickelodeon Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`827 F.3d 262 (3d Cr. 2016) .................................................................................................................... 9
`In re Vizio, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`iii
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 6 of 34
`
`Italian Colors Rest. v. Becerra,
`878 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................................... 19, 20
`Janda v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc.,
`No. C 05-03729 JSW, 2009 WL 667206 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2009) .................................................. 21
`Klein v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-08570-LHK, 2022 WL 141561 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2022) ............................................... 24
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) ......................................................................................................................... 21
`LaCourt v. Specific Media, Inc.,
`No. SACV 10-1256 GW JCGX, 2011 WL 1661532 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2011) ................................. 23
`Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc.,
`771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended ............................................................................................ 7
`Low v. Linkedin Corp.,
`2011 WL 5509848 (N.D. Cal. Nov.11, 2011) ..................................................................................... 23
`McBride v. Boughton,
`123 Cal. App. 4th 379 (2004) .............................................................................................................. 25
`McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC,
`489 F. Supp. 3d 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ................................................................................................. 12
`Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`45 Cal. 4th 634 (2009) ......................................................................................................................... 24
`MicroTechnologies, LLC v. Autonomy, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-02220-JCS, 2017 WL 1848470 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2017) ................................................ 25
`Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.,
`497 U.S. 1 (1990) ................................................................................................................................. 12
`Millare v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`No. CV 21-8398 PA (KESX), 2022 WL 1434109 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2022) ...................................... 10
`Mollett v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 5:11-CV-01629-EJD, 2012 WL 3731542 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2012) ........................................ 6, 9
`New York v. Ferber,
`458 U.S. 747 (1982) ............................................................................................................................. 11
`Papasan v. Allain,
`478 U.S. 265 (1986) ............................................................................................................................... 5
`Persona Cosms., Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.,
`No. 221CV04644JVSKES, 2021 WL 6103348 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2021) .......................................... 25
`R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn.,
`505 U.S. 377 (1992) ....................................................................................................................... 14, 17
`Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz.,
`576 U.S. 155 (2015) ....................................................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`iv
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 7 of 34
`
`Resnick v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc.,
`No. CV1600593BROPJWX, 2017 WL 1531192 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) (dismissing ................... 10
`Rhynes v. Stryker Corp.,
`No. 10-5619 SC, 2011 WL 2149095 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011) ........................................................... 7
`Robbins v. Plushcare, Inc.,
`No. 21-CV-03444-MMC, 2022 WL 2988344 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2022) ........................................... 25
`Ruiz v. Gap, Inc.,
`540 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................................................... 22
`S&S Worldwide, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`509 F. Supp. 3d 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................................... 10
`Salenfriend v. Green Tree Servicing LLC,
`No. C-14-03251(EDL), 2014 WL 12647745 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2014) ............................................. 9
`Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart,
`467 U.S. 20 (1984) ............................................................................................................................... 14
`Shin v. ICON Found.,
`No. 20-CV-07363-WHO, 2021 WL 6117508 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2021) ........................................... 25
`Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co.,
`443 U.S. 97 (1979) ............................................................................................................................... 17
`Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.,
`564 U.S. 552 (2011) ........................................................................................................... 13, 14, 19, 20
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,
`266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................. 5
`State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,
`425 U.S. 748 (1976) ............................................................................................................................. 15
`Svenson v. Google Inc.,
`65 F. Supp. 3d 717 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................................... 22
`Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton,
`44 P.3d 1044 (Colo. 2002) ................................................................................................................... 18
`The Fla. Star v. B.J.F.,
`491 U.S. 524 (1989) ................................................................................................................. 12, 13, 18
`U.D. Registry Inc. v. State of California,
`144 Cal. App. 4th 405 (2006) .............................................................................................................. 15
`United States v. Hansen,
`25 F.4th 1103 (9th Cir. 2022) .............................................................................................................. 11
`United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc.,
`529 U.S. 803 (2000) ....................................................................................................................... 16, 17
`United States v. Stanko,
`491 F.3d 408 (8th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`v
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 8 of 34
`
`United States v. Stevens,
`559 U.S. 460 (2010) ....................................................................................................................... 11, 13
`Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC,
`847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................................. 21
`Victory Processing, LLC v. Fox,
`937 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................................. 17
`Warren v. Fox Fam. Worldwide, Inc.,
`328 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................................... 5
`Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party,
`552 U.S. 442 (2008) ............................................................................................................................. 11
`
`Statutes
`8 U.S.C. § 1324 ........................................................................................................................................ 11
`18 U.S.C. § 2710 .............................................................................................................................. Passim
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 .............................................................................................................. 21
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a) ......................................................................................................................... 24
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.83.5 ................................................................................................................ 16, 18
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) .............................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`vi
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 9 of 34
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`Defendant Patreon, Inc. moves to dismiss the claims of the four Plaintiffs here, each of whom
`alleges that Patreon unlawfully transmitted to Facebook information about videos Plaintiffs watched
`when using Patreon’s website. None of the claims has merit.
`For their claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), Plaintiffs must plead facts
`showing that Patreon is a “video tape service provider,” that Patreon disclosed the specific videos they
`watched along with information that would identify them individually, and that Patreon had actual
`knowledge it was transmitting that particular information to Facebook. Not only does the complaint
`lack any such factual allegations, documents cited in the Complaint contradict an essential element of
`the claim. But even if Plaintiffs could adequately plead a violation of the VPPA, it would not matter,
`because that law – which imposes presumed damages on the disclosure of truthful information to which
`a consumer has actually consented, without any actual injury – violates the First Amendment, both on its
`face and as applied.
`Plaintiffs’ UCL and CLRA claims fare no better. Plaintiffs cannot recover for disclosures that
`they actually consented to, as they each did here. And even if consent were lacking, Plaintiffs have
`failed to plead required facts that show they lost money or property merely because Patreon
`(purportedly) disclosed to Facebook videos they had watched, so that Facebook and Patreon could
`improve their services to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ final claim, for unjust enrichment, is not a standalone
`cause of action in California. Moreover, the Complaint once again alleges no facts to show how Patreon
`was unjustly enriched, nor any facts that would establish that Patreon could be unjustly enriched by
`conduct that Plaintiffs agreed to in Patreon’s Terms of Use.
`The Complaint fails to state a claim, and should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`The gist of the case is simple: The four Plaintiffs allege that they each signed up to be Patreon
`members and Facebook users; they watched videos using the Patreon website; and Patreon, through the
`use of a software tool called Facebook Pixel, transmitted to Facebook the titles of the videos Plaintiffs
`watched, along with their Facebook user IDs. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 1-4) Plaintiffs assert that Patreon never told
`them it would disclose their viewing content to third parties, and that they never consented to such
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 10 of 34
`
`disclosures. (Id. ¶ 5) Had they known, Plaintiffs say, they would have paid Patreon less, or not used
`Patreon’s services at all. (Id. ¶ 94)1
`But the Complaint is more noteworthy for what it fails to say, for what it says only in conclusory
`fashion without any factual support, and for what it says that is directly contradicted by documents that
`the Complaint expressly references, such as Patreon’s Terms of Use (“ToU”), Privacy Policy, and
`Cookie Policy. (Id. ¶¶ 47, 85) Plaintiffs’ silence on significant elements of their claim, plus the facts
`established by the actual documents they cite, tell a different story.
`Although Plaintiffs allege, in conclusory fashion, that Patreon is a “video tape service provider”
`(id. ¶¶ 2, 65), the Complaint does not contain a single allegation describing Patreon’s actual business.
`Fortunately, Patreon’s Terms of Use describe what Patreon actually does for its members. (Patreon
`Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Ex. A (Layton Decl.) at Ex. 1 (ToU))
`“Patreon is a membership platform that enables creators to be paid by their fans.” (RJN Ex. A at
`Ex. 1 (ToU) at 1; see also RJN Ex. A at Ex. 5 (Privacy Policy) at 2 (“Patreon is a platform where
`patrons can support and engage with creators.”) A creator is someone who creates a membership page
`on Patreon to engage with their fans – known on the site as patrons – by offering “access, merchandise,
`exclusivity, and engaging experiences.” (RJN Ex. A at Ex. 1 (ToU) at 3-4) As the ToU explain,
`creators “can use creator tools that Patreon provides, showcase [their] creations, provide merchandise to
`patrons through Patreon’s Merch service, and receive recurring revenue from [their] page.” (Id. at 4)
`Patrons purchase memberships for specific creators on a monthly, annual, or per creation basis. (Id. at
`8-11) The fees that patrons pay for memberships go to the creators as taxable income, except for a
`percentage (currently 5-12%) that Patreon retains as a platform and payment-processing fee. (Id. at 5-6)
`In short, Patreon’s business is helping creative people connect with those who are interested in
`supporting their work, for which it charges a commission. Patreon is not in the business of “rental, sale,
`or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials.” 18 U.S.C.
`§ 2710(a)(4).
`
`
`1 Patreon denies that it discloses to Facebook what videos Patreon members watch. But this is a Rule
`12(b)(6) motion, and for this motion Patreon accepts as true the Complaint’s factual allegations, to the
`extent they are not contradicted by the documents cited in the Complaint itself.
`2
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 11 of 34
`
`The Complaint alleges that each Plaintiff paid Patreon “subscription fees.” (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 19, 22,
`25, 28) With the benefit of the ToU, that allegation is more clear: each of the Plaintiffs signed up for a
`membership program to be a patron of one or more creators through the Patreon platform, and Patreon
`retained a small percentage of each payment. (RJN Ex. A at Ex. 1 (ToU) at 5-6) In addition, each
`Plaintiff alleges that they viewed videos on the Patreon website. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 20, 23, 26, 29)
`Presumably, one or more of the creators they supported offered some form of video content to their
`patrons through their membership pages. (RJN Ex. A at Ex. 1 at 3-4)
`Plaintiffs further allege that Patreon’s website incorporated “Pixel,” which they describe as “an
`advertising tool that allows website owners to track visitor actions on their websites for purposes of
`sending the corresponding information to Facebook.” (Dkt. 1, ¶ 41) According to Plaintiffs, “[t]hrough
`use of the Facebook Pixel, Patreon discloses to Facebook the full name of each video a User watched,
`together with the User’s FID [Facebook ID], thus linking Users’ viewing content choices and
`preferences to their Facebook profiles.” (Id. ¶ 45)
`Plaintiffs claim that they did not know about, and did not consent to, the disclosure of their
`viewing conduct to third parties. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 5, 46, 79) Patreon’s ToU and Privacy Policy say
`otherwise.2 In the Privacy Policy, Patreon disclosed the data it may collect:
`(cid:131) Through their accounts, members provide their first and last name, email address, and state
`and country of residence. (RJN Ex. A at Ex. 5 at 2)
`
`(cid:131) Patreon stated that “[w]e collect information automatically as you navigate the site or
`through our third-party analytics providers.” (Id. at 5)
`(cid:131) Patreon stated that it collects “usage information such as the type of device you use to
`access Patreon, your operating system, browser type, IP address, device ID, the pages you
`visit or request, links clicked, referring sites, user interactions and your search terms.” (Id.)
`In addition, Patreon’s Privacy Policy disclosed, under the bolded heading “Information We
`Share With Third Parties,” that it would share that data with third parties like Facebook:
`
`
`
`INFORMATION WE SHARE WITH THIRD PARTIES
`… We will only share data with third parties, other than with creators, under the following
`circumstances: … with our service providers, who are companies that are contractually
`engaged with us to provide us with services, such as order fulfilment, email management,
`
`
`2 Patreon’s ToU explicitly incorporates its Privacy Policy. (RJN Ex. A at Ex. 1 at 2; see also RJN Ex. A
`at Ex. 5 at 2 (“This updated Privacy Policy … is part of our Terms of Use.”))
`3
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 12 of 34
`
`analysing data trends, credit card processing, multi-currency settlement solutions, increasing
`our brand awareness and user engagement with marketing initiatives, and fraud detection and
`prevention.
`(Id. at 11 (emphasis in title in original; emphasis in body text added))
`Plaintiffs nonetheless object to Patreon’s alleged disclosure to Facebook of titles of videos they
`watched on the Patreon website, along with their Facebook IDs (“FIDs”). Plaintiffs assert, as a general
`matter, that a user’s FID is linked to their Facebook profile, “which generally contains a wide range of
`demographic and other information about the user, including pictures, personal interests, work history,
`relationship status, and other details.” (Dkt. 1, ¶ 2) But Plaintiffs nowhere allege that their own
`Facebook profiles have detailed personal information about them, or even that their Facebook profiles
`use their own names.
`Plaintiffs allege that “Patreon was aware” that its disclosures to Facebook through Pixel
`identified Plaintiffs and that “Patreon also knew” Plaintiffs’ viewing content “was disclosed to Facebook
`because Patreon programmed the Facebook Pixel into its website code knowing that Facebook would
`receive video titles and the subscriber’s FID when a user watched a video.” (Id. ¶ 71) Plaintiffs offer
`nothing else in support of their allegation that Patreon “was aware of” or “knew” what specific
`information was transmitted by the Facebook Pixel.
`As for injury, the Complaint remains true to form. Plaintiffs allege that Patreon and Facebook
`use the information from Pixel to improve the products and services they offer Plaintiffs, not in any way
`that exposes Plaintiffs publicly or causes them embarrassment. (Dkt. 1, ¶ 41-44) Plaintiffs do not allege
`fact